Peckris

Scott, There are 13 minor types of low tide penny and just two for the high tide type, all based on the size, shape and pointings of the 0, 9 and 2 in the date. I have to say this is new to me. And having learned it, I really can't say I'm very much excited either. I believe many collectors have quite a low interest threshold for these very minor pointing varieties, as witness the almost total apathy towards : 4 different types of 1957 'calm sea' halfpenny various 1937 reverses 1928 silver 1905 penny reverses It's my own opinion that the more distinguishable a variation is, or the rarer it is, the more likely it is to become popular - which would explain the 1909 penny, the 1915 farthing, the 1920 penny (all hard to distinguish but rare). I did actually communicate with the seller of the 1903 penny ("Returns Not Accepted") to ask if he would make an exception as the picture wasn't clear enough to "tell which of two types it was". He replied saying I was "confusing the 1903 with the 1902 - there's only one type of 1903". I didn't push it, in case he started looking through reference books and relisting the item...

I'll stick to the lottery if you don't mind - the odds are better!

Apologies, old geek slang Been there, done that, got the T-shirt One useful trick of my Apple Mac is that I can selectively zoom the screen in on any part, so I've had some nice blurry screens full of particular coins! (A large blur beats a small blur hands down).

Yes I just spent a fruitless hour or so on eBay chasing some upgrades to my bun penny collection. These were nice grades, but rather 'glossy' (I got the distinct impression they had been rubbed or even lightly polished). They went for silly money in the end - more than Spink, many of them. I could understand the VF 1869, but the others?

Unfortunately I couldn't reject this one as the seller was one of those "No Returns Accepted" guys (I normally don't buy off them, but in this case I thought I'd take a chance). BTDTGTTS! frustating trying to decide whether an "I" points to a space or a tooth on a blown up photo, or else nice coin but no picture of the side I'm really interested in BTDTGTTS ?? I know what you mean about those damn sellers who only display one side though - they irritate the hell out of me. But I did get a laugh from the guy who couldn't tell the difference between 1927 and 1928 obverses, and put up one of each penny with the wrong obverse - I thought I'd found a rare mule ! ... briefly

Do try to persuade ChrisP to include it in CCGB! I've tried but so far, no luck (oh well, time will tell...). I did persuade Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, so that's good at least. Peckris, Chris has a copy of my book and I am happy for him to include any of the varieties I have described, either in CCGB or the new 'Peck.' I guess its up to him what he wants to include. One issue through is what constitutes a 'genuine' variety and what has been accepted as one, even though its technically arisen as a flaw. It may be that Chris only wants to include those types which have arisen through design changes or where dies have been repaired following damage. Sure, but if "The Bible" sees fit to include it ... and after all, CCGB does feature the 1897 version of "the dot", so for consistency sake it could go in I'd have thought. Still, as you say, it's up to him.

I just saw this on the front screen here in the Pre-Decimal Forums : Cool ! Or as they say in the States, WAY TO GO HistoriC !!

You might be interested in this picture : On the top, the 1903 penny photo uploaded by the seller, which made me interested enough to bid for it (I had to increase the image size three-fold to get a decent picture, so it looks rather fuzzy and grainy). Below, my own scan of it when it arrived at Peckris Acres. As I'm sure you can very easily see, a quite possible "open 3" turns out to be nothing of the sort.

Do try to persuade ChrisP to include it in CCGB! I've tried but so far, no luck (oh well, time will tell...). I did persuade Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, so that's good at least.

BMC 2214. F 164A. Dies 1*+C. Near Fine, buckled. Rare - 17 bids and now up to £480 - anyone here ever seen one of these? Well its a fairly rare variety, although Freeman only classifies it as R5. The latest version of Freeman (2006) gives a price of £300 for one in fine condition, so allow a bit more for it now being 2009. However, would you pay £400+ for that coin in that state? I'm not even sure its as genuinely rare as is claimed for it, since Freeman R5 isn't exactly rare. There are probably a good many out there still in the boxes of unwanted well worn junk that nobody can be bothered to sort through. My recommendation would be for forum users to go through their boxes of junk - you never know. Are you sure it isn't that extra variety that Gouby records - the intermediate obverse? If so I understand it is VERY rare (Freeman R5 isn't really rare at all).

the easiest way to spot the reverses is to look at the wave below the shield on the right - if there are 3 ripples, it's Reverse B. Also you tend to find that Reverse A has hardly any rim at all and the teeth are disappearing off the edge, compared to Rev B.

For very valuable coins, I'm not sure I would take the risk, but otherwise it looks ok. And if you are really concerned, the home page of Predecimal sells accessories, including coin envelopes that the owner guarantees are PVC-free. You can place an envelope into a pocket in an album - that's what many people do. I've never found WHSmith the cheapest retailers - you could compare their prices with the home page here?

I got the information from Freeman.

Quick rundown : Obverse A (1911-13) : high but narrow rim, head in sharp detailed relief, colon after IMP points to a tooth, lower colon dot between GRA BRITT nearer the A Obverse B (1913-21) : lower but slightly wider rim, head less "sharp", colon after IMP doesn't point to a tooth, lower colon dot between GRA BRITT almost touches both letters, more border teeth Reverse A (1911-13) : very similar to final Ed VII reverse Reverse B (1913-26) : design very slightly smaller and rim slightly wider, more ripples above wave bottom right of shield, date numerals slightly closer, more border teeth; (Britannia's face, breast, shoulders and upper arms are nearly always not properly struck up on this reverse - due to the high relief of the obverse) It's important to note that these variations are very difficult to separate at a glance, especially if the coin is less than EF. The differences are quite subtle, which is quite possibly why they are not collected as enthusiastically as they might be. And as none of them is truly rare (like the 1915 TT farthing), they do tend to be overlooked. If you have a high grade 1911 and a high grade 1913-1926, you could use them for comparison. (You can see from this picture how difficult it is): (Oops sorry DaveG - you hadn't posted when I began preparing my reply )

The 1889 Crown in Fine condition is worth about £12 - £15. Yours is Fine.

£2 would be fair for that variety in that state - I would go for it scott! (I have a 1+A and a 2+B in high grades, so they are enough for me.)

And when you see that the standard annual and totally unnecessary proof set is now 40 quid... As for the price for 16 silver proof 50p pieces - £425 ??? That's some inflation when you realise that the silver proof anniversary decimal currency set (1996?) was under £100. And even worse when you realise that in 5 years' time, you'll be able to pick them up at auction for probably £250 - £300. Or less.

Judged only on wear, I would say EF, yes.

You need to find out what the terms of the insurance policy are. Does it cover the full UK market value of the coin in transit from there to you? If you lose the coin, you don't want to lose what you paid also.

Scott - you have a bee in your bonnet about that 1913! But it's only estimated £2 - £4 so it can't be that rare. I would class it Scarce, no more, just like a 1953 1+B farthing.

One of the bidders seems to be under the impression that the 'lower estimate' is the same thing as a 'minimum bid' (All the items where there is only one bidder, are exactly the lower estimate!) Or perhaps it's a crafty ploy? After all, all unbid items are apparently to be sold at their lower estimates, so bidding that would effectively 'reserve' the coin if it's not contested.

From the colour I can see on my monitor, it looks as if it was gilded one time. Perhaps someone tested it out on a penny before turning to farthings? Otherwsie it's not easy to say - there could be any number of atmospheric or storage causes as to discolouration. But as you say, the detail is nice.

Oh, you have the 'swimming frog' variety! (Ok, I'm jesting ... but look to the left of the V in TERTIVS)

They're not scott - see my reply above. F175 and F176 are the scarce mules (not rare, but much scarcer than F174 and F177).

Yes, I'm totally stumped by Lot 5 - you can easily see it's a beaded reverse, but the obverse? And an estimate of over £200?? Interestingly, there are no bids on it yet. Scott - the 1913s are like the 1953 farthing, scarce if muled. So 1+B and 2+A are pretty scarce compared with 1+A and 2+B. Freeman rates the 1+B as N, and 2+A as C, but that's compared with C10 and C13! So surviving exmples of the mules will be pretty scarce.